|
|
Post by phil on Jan 19, 2006 11:23:17 GMT -5
 ... Can't we just enjoy the music instead ... |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 19, 2006 11:23:31 GMT -5
As for "seniority" - I agree w/the comments luke made about any given band having the potential to be BEST on earth regardless of how many albums or how long they've been around - - therefore, it would be unfair, for instance, to assign "1 point for every year" a band has been around, cuz someone like the Stones would get a 30-point headstart, see. Therefore, we'd have to consider possibly assigning 1 point for each decade a band has been around. This would even out the fairness with a band like the Stones vs a band like, say, System of a Down. The Stones might get a headstart of 3 points automatically for being around for 30 years, and SOAD would only get 1 point for that, but they would also get 1 point for having moshing at their shows.
Once a definitive "index" that covers every possible point-qualifier is set up by us, we could then easily plug in all the values for every band alive and see where they stand respectively in the 'Best Band On Earth' running.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 19, 2006 11:24:05 GMT -5
That sounds nerdy enough I might have thought of it. I know, I'm rather proud of it *blows on knuckles* |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 19, 2006 11:25:01 GMT -5
... Can't we just enjoy the music instead ... What fun would that be? Anyone can just enjoy music...how else can we prove ourselves better then those people? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 19, 2006 11:25:36 GMT -5
cuz someone like the Stones would get a 30-point headstart
Closer to 42 ... !!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 19, 2006 11:27:30 GMT -5
... Can't we just enjoy the music instead ... What fun would that be? Anyone can just enjoy music...how else can we prove ourselves better then those people? Simply by doing what we're doing here... talk about the music we love, and introduce it to the other people here ... |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 19, 2006 11:47:15 GMT -5
what're you, a hippie?
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 19, 2006 11:57:47 GMT -5
And I love him for it . . . |
|
zorndeslammes
Streetcorner Musician
RICKSON BY ARMBAR!!1!!!!1!
Posts: 74
|
Post by zorndeslammes on Jan 19, 2006 13:02:02 GMT -5
In all seriousness, bringing the discussion back to Onion v. Pitchfork, Pitchfork's reviews are god awful. I mean, really bad. Its gotten to the point where many of their reviews don't discuss the album or even a single song. There's just funny stories about some dumb shit someone did as a kid, and then at the end of it, "and this album reminds me of it, so it sucks. 0.2." That, and there's a ridiculous bent towards indie rock, which grows tiresome if you're someone like me, who couldn't give a fuck about 3/4 of those bands. At least Wire Magazine dedicates even time to everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jan 19, 2006 13:49:07 GMT -5
It's important that people remember that. The Shins are much better than The Arcade Fire, as is Interpol. Arcade Fire and Interpol are both great young bands - amongst the best around. Nearly as good as Muse, in fact. Arcade Fire get drooled all over by critics, whereas Interpol get a lukewarm critical response. The reason for this is that Arcade Fire sound indie and Canadian, so luckily for them they're really tapped into the Pitchfork indie zeitgeist. Interpol sound a little tiny bit like Joy Division, so they apparently shouldn't be taken seriously. Fuck critics. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 19, 2006 14:12:37 GMT -5
HÉ ! At least you didn't call me an OLD hippie ... ! |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 19, 2006 14:13:43 GMT -5
HÉ ! At least you didn't call me an OLD hippie ... ! That's Eldest Son's nickname of choice for me ... |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 19, 2006 16:18:39 GMT -5
Pitchfork drooled over Interpol plenty. Turn On the Bright Lights was their #1 album of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 19, 2006 16:19:25 GMT -5
heh. i was just about to say that, Rocky. Interpol are quite beloved. I don't know where JLLM gets his reporting from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 19, 2006 16:22:56 GMT -5
In all seriousness, bringing the discussion back to Onion v. Pitchfork, Pitchfork's reviews are god awful. I mean, really bad. Its gotten to the point where many of their reviews don't discuss the album or even a single song. There's just funny stories about some dumb shit someone did as a kid, and then at the end of it, "and this album reminds me of it, so it sucks. 0.2." That, and there's a ridiculous bent towards indie rock, which grows tiresome if you're someone like me, who couldn't give a fuck about 3/4 of those bands. At least Wire Magazine dedicates even time to everything. Wire is hardcore independant... which by any other name goes by 'indie', does it not? It's just way more anal about it, whereas Pitchfork will indulge in some goofiness or silly anecdotes to liven up the reviews. Pitchfork's got problems though, for sure. I would never live on a steady diet of only pitchfork if i were interested in music, generally. But i respect them a lot more than i do certain other 'zines. |
|
... Can't we just enjoy the music instead ... 
